I say that because, the article, on the whole, isn’t that bad. The scariest part is the headline itself.

Call me crazy, but after reading the article with the most unbiased eye I can muster, the reasoning behind of the use of GMOs in the description of each food seems pretty, well, reasonable. I would hope that consumers with no background in agriculture reading it find the reasoning makes sense, too.

if you haven’t had the time to read it, here’s the gist: Farmers have been using GMOs for nearly 30 years, and today, close to half of all U.S. cropland is planted with GMO crops. However, very few of the whole foods we eat are GMO varieties.

The article covered summer squash and zucchini, papayas, sweet corn, potatoes and apples, all of which have GMO varieties available. In the instance of summer squash and zucchini, papayas and sweet corn, Eating Well says GMO varieties are grown to combat diseases or pests which would have previously wiped out the crops.

In the case of sweet corn, Eating Well says,

“A minor amount of GMO sweet corn is grown in the U.S. and sold as fresh ears; a high percentage of Canadian sweet corn is GMO. Traits that have been developed are herbicide and earworm (insect) resistance.”

Am I wrong in thinking that explanation makes a lot of sense? Why grow safe food that’s going to be eaten by pests when you can grow safe food that’s not going to be eaten by pests? I mean, this just doesn’t look appealing to me:

Despite the logic Eating Well employs when talking about the benefits of GMOs, it lays out a headline sure to reel in anyone who is dead-set against GMOs, and even folks who are simply curious about GMOs. Unfortunately, a headline like that has the ability to sway the curious.